On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 04:43:03AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 01:33:17PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 10:27:10PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2023 at 10:51:50AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: > > > > +/** > > > > + * __generic_file_fsync_nolock - generic fsync implementation for simple > > > > + * filesystems with no inode lock > > > > > > No reallz need for the __ prefix in the name. > > > > It kind of makes sense though. > > > > generic_file_fsync does the flush > > __generic_file_fsync doesn't do the flush > > __generic_file_fsync_nolock doesn't do the flush and doesn't lock/unlock > > Indeed. Part of it is that the naming is a bit horrible. > Maybe it should move to buffer.c and be called generic_buffer_fsync, > or generic_block_fsync which still wouldn't be perfect but match the > buffer.c naming scheme. > > > > > > > +extern int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t, loff_t, int); > > > > > > No need for the extern. And at least I personally prefer to spell out > > > the parameter names to make the prototype much more readable. > > > > Agreed, although I make an exception for the 'struct file *'. Naming that > > parameter adds no value, but a plain int is just obscene. > > > > int __generic_file_fsync_nolock(struct file *, loff_t start, loff_t end, > > bool datasync); > > While I agree that it's not needed for the file, leaving it out is a bit > silly. I think we should just be consistent and try to enforce that the parameter name is added in new patches. It's often easier for grepping and there's really not a lot of value in leaving it out in general.
